Appeal No. 1997-4444
Application 08/427,884
submitted an amendment after final (Paper No. 9) on
December 11, 1996, making the suggested modifications. In the
Advisory Action (Paper No. 10), the Examiner refused to enter
the amendment on the grounds that one of the grounds for
rejection of claim 1 had not been overcome (although the
Examiner had proposed no language to cure the alleged problem)
even though entry of the amendment would have simplified the
appeal by removing the other grounds for rejection from
consideration. Appellant's brief does not address the § 112
rejection, apparently because Appellant believed the amendment
after final would be entered. Since we consider the
Examiner's refusal to enter the December 11, 1996, amendment
unreasonable, we will address the merits of the rejection even
though they have not been argued.
The Examiner states that in claim 1, "'said locating
platen being fixed relative to said movable mechanical
couplers' is misleading as it suggests that the 'platen' is
moving with the couplers, being fixed with respect to them"
(FR2).
In connection with the anticipation rejection, Appellant
notes that "fixed" is defined by Webster's Seventh New
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007